Language desk
< May 12	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 13

Correct legal terminology

Say that two parties (A and B) enter into a valid contract. Later on, both A and B mutually decide that they do not want to have that contract after all. What is the legal word that describes this? At first, I was thinking "rescind/rescission", but that does not seem to be the correct term. I guess what I am asking is ... what is the correct legal term for "both parties changing their minds and mutually agreeing to cancel the contract"? Is "cancel" the right word? Or is there a more precise legal word? Thanks! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

What's wrong with rescind/recission? That seems right to me, at least if one party changes their mind. Do you mean you think there is a different term if both parties do it? I don't think there is one. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I read the rescission article, it seemed that the term refers to some outside party (like a judge) throwing out the contract, as a remedy for some dispute about the contract. In other words, one of the contract's parties has a complaint or an issue about the contract, and the judge's remedy to fix the controversy and to resolve the dispute is to rescind the contract. That is how I read the rescission article. And, in my question, no one is complaining or claiming any breach of contract. Both parties mutually simply changed their minds and want to get rid of the contract (legally). Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

"Annulment by mutual consent" comes to mind. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Annulment" seems to me to nullify the entire contract. I am not sure that that fits with what I am asking. Let me give an example. Let's say that a landlord and a tenant enter a lease contract on January 1st (2010) to run for one full year, ending on December 31st (2010). Both parties live up to the contract, lease terms, tenancy, etc. There are no breaches, nor allegations of breach whatsoever. Then, in the middle of the contract (let's just say July 1st), both parties change their minds and "want out" of the contract ... even though the contract still has 6 full months more to go on it. "Annulment" seems to indicate that the whole contract was nullified (even the January through June component). In my scenario, the January through June component is still a valid contract, with both parties having rights and responsibilities. None of that is void or nullified. They just want the July through December component to be thrown out or "undone". That is the word I am searching for. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

If the parties were going to change the terms of the July through December component, I assume that this is called "modifying" the contract. What I want is the word when both parties agree that on July 1st, there is no more contract whatsoever. So, they are not modifying anything ... they are essentially simply ripping up the contract and throwing it out the window (as if it never existed, in terms of the July through December piece). But they are keeping the January through June piece legally intact. There must be some legal term for this? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It's perfectly common, and is usually referred to as 'termination by mutual agreement' - one of several ways of terminating a contract (performance and breach are two others). Maid Marion (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colloquially known as "tearing up the contract." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for the input. This was very helpful ... thank you! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

'Education level', 'educational level' or 'level of education

Which of the phrases above best describe how educated people are? Kayau Voting IS evil 14:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Educational level and level of education are both equally acceptable. Each might be better than the other for a particular context. Education level is not quite incorrect, but to my native-speaker ears it sounds awkward and unnatural. Marco polo (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My native-speaking ears agree with Marco. DuncanHill (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Canadian ears thinks differently. To me, educational level sounds awkward, almost as if it was referring to the grade level itself rather than the person's accomplishment. For example, I might ask a prospective employee about their education level (or level of education), but I would talk with the school principal about the relative funding available for the various educational levels. Matt Deres (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My British ears like "level of education" best, "education level" second best (I'd probably only use that as a heading in a table or something rather than in a sentence) and I don't like "educational level" at all (I would think you were talking about how educational something is, but it would be a weird way to do so). --Tango (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So educational level may be a United States thing. On the other hand, education level does not sound right in the United States. So, if you want to be safe everywhere English is spoken, probably the best form is level of education. Marco polo (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Education level sounds American to me, educational level British. I am, and my ears are, British. DuncanHill (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consent versus assent

What exactly is the difference in meaning if someone consents versus assents to something? Example 1: I will paint the home blue only if all of the homeowners consent. Example 2: I will paint the home blue only if all of the homeowners assent. Thank you. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

In your examples, I don't think that there is a practical difference. In both cases, the word in quotes could be replaced with the word agree. However, I do think that there is a subtle difference in meaning between the two words. Consent means to actively agree to something. Assent means to allow something, or to choose not to disagree. Assent suggest a more passive agreement. Marco polo (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I somewhat see what you are talking about, in terms of a subtle difference. But, would you mind giving an example sentence for each word to clarify/illustrate what you are saying in your above post? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

My Webster's defines assent as, "to agree to something, especially after thoughtful consideration; to concur." It defines consent as, "to give assent or approval; to agree." So there's a lame example of the use of "assent", which I don't think is really used that often compared with "consent". As per Marco Polo's grounds, "assent" is more passive, "consent" is more active. Like "I won't stand in your way" vs. "I'll go along with that." Both come from the Latin sentire meaning "to feel", with the prefixes "ad-" meaning "to" and "con-" meaning "with". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly consent is more active than assent. Just try to imagine "two assenting adults" having sex (without the help of a third party). LANTZY ^TALK 19:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Can someone please offer two good example sentences, to illustrate and contrast the more active agreement sense of "consent" versus the more passive agreement sense of "assent"? Thank you! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Have you looked on Google at all? This is beginning to sound like a homework question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A homework question! I am 50 years old. That homework would be long overdue! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

In Commonwealth countries, laws must be given Royal Assent before they become effective. The monarch is above politics, and in practice the withholding of assent is unthinkable. The term 'assent' implies an aloofness, a profound official disinterest in the details of the law (as compared with what is often a very keen personal interest); the Parliament can run its affairs quite nicely without any interference from the queen or the governor-general, so whatever the parliament legislates, she will sign it unquestioningly. Same deal for regulations drafted by the government under the authority of a law; they just get assented to regardless. Whereas, 'consent' would suggest the monarch/g-g has read through the proposed law and gives it the big tick only because they agree with its general thrust. Assent has nothing to do with the monarch's personal agreement or otherwise, and is not taken as that. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could imagine a situation where the Queen might refuse, for example if a "rogue" coalition of Parliament passed a law that the Queen truly believed would harm the nation severely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To get through all stages in both chambers is pretty difficult. The "rogue coalition" would have to have control of timetabling, etc. Many bills with support on both sides of both Houses fail simply because they cannot get parliamentary time. DuncanHill (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're making it up as you go along, Bugsy. It's not like the US presidential system where the prez can veto a bill he doesn't like. Tbe parliament is supreme, which is why even the queen could not abdicate without the parliament's agreement. Whatever the party numbers may be, all decisions of the parliament are decisions of the parliament, not decisions of the governing party or coalition of parties. I'm sure the queen has been asked to sign laws that she has found pretty distasteful, but signed them regardless. She does have a regular chat with her PM, where she can exercise her constitutional rights to be consulted and to warn. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being an IP doesn't give you any special privilege to act like a jerk. I wanted to know if there were any possible circumstances where the Queen might have to put her foot down and say "No" to some outrageous act that somehow got through Parliament. I think that's a fair question to ask. Unlike your semi-humble self, not all of us are experts on the fine points of the British Parliament. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, the Queen may not have a legal right to abdicate on her own, but if she got sufficiently fed up, she could say, "I refuse to do my job any longer." Very unlikely to happen, as the Queen has a very strong sense of duty. But nothing is impossible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also very unlikely that Parliament would refuse to let the Queen abdicate if she wanted to. +An gr 12:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Baseball Bugs. OK, let's talk. Your post "I could imagine a situation where ..." did not and still does not look like any kind of question to me, but a supposition. And a supposition that wasn't supported by any reference, which wouldn't exist because it would never happen. That's why I denied it. As for "you're making it up as you go along", I say that in light-hearted jest to my friends and colleagues all the time, have done for many years, and nobody has ever taken offence. I forgot I was talking to someone not conversant with my ways, so I'm sorry for not taking that into account. Back to the topic: you seem to be making a statement again with "And by the way ...". I disagree with that one too (not that I'm remotely any kind of expert in these matters, nor have I ever claimed to be). Yes, technically possible and all that, but the scenario is as likely as the US President, during his State of the Union address, outing himself as the Dalai Lama's secret gay lover. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The aside is interesting. But, can someone please give me two good sentences? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

There is another american context in which consent and assent are distinguished: there is a medicolegal difference between the two. Consent can be given to a medical procedure only by an "informed" adult with an ordinary understanding, whereas assent is a degree of agreement to a procedure or research project given by someone (typically a child) who is not considered legally competent to give "informed consent". These days, at least in the US, informed consent forms for human biomedical research have separate lines to sign for consent and assent. alteripse (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary.com has for assent: "to agree or concur; subscribe to (often fol. by to): to assent to a statement. 2. to give in; yield; concede with the example sentence: Assenting to his demands, I did as I was told. From the Welsh NHS: It is a general legal and ethical principle that valid consent must be obtained before starting treatment or physical investigation, the implication being that there is more of a positive informed agreement rather than just "giving in". I'm sure someone can find or devise some better sentences. Dbfirs 14:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assenting to the request of the questioner, I offer the following two sentences:

After George insisted that all of the townhouses on the street should be painted blue, the other property owners reluctantly assented to his wish.

After the property owners discussed George's plan to paint all of the townhouses blue, they agreed that the new color would improve the houses' appearance and consented to his plan.

Marco polo (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The American Heritage Dictionary is an excellent resource for explaining subtle differences in the meanings of similar words. (Askers and answerers, please remember that point for future questions of this type.) If you go to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assent and scroll down to "Synonyms", you can see an explanation of the difference between "assent" and "consent". -- Wavelength (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to all for the above discussion. This was helpful to me. Thanks, also, to those who provided example sentences. Much appreciated! Thank you. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Translation into "small" languages

As an English speaker, I take it for granted that a vast amount of world literature will be translated into my language. But how much literature is translated into a language like Icelandic, which has fewer than half a million speakers? If you're a well-read Icelander, is it more common that you would read books untranslated, or translated into a second language like Danish or Swedish? What about a slightly "larger" language, like Finnish? How much is translated into Finnish and how do Finns generally gain access to foreign literature? (Or any other language? My curiosity is open-ended.) LANTZY ^TALK 19:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly fewer books are translated into "small" languages than into English. However, books are translated into these languages. According to this article, Icelanders may be the world's busiest translators on a per capita basis. UNESCO collects statistics on translation in its Index Translationum. According to its report on translations published in Iceland, several hundred titles are translated into Icelandic most years (though oddly only a handful some years). As you'd expect, the number of titles translated per year is somewhat larger for Finland. As for how speakers of "small" languages gain access to foreign literature, as you can see, some translations are done. However, educated speakers of small languages tend to master at least one more widely spoken foreign language, often including English these days. Finns are required to learn Swedish in school, so they could read titles in Swedish. Many can also read English, as can probably most Icelanders. Marco polo (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here in Finland translation work is pretty generously supported by the government as well as private foundations, so there is much more done than a free market would provide for, especially in fields where the commercial market is pretty small. Meaning serious scholarship, classics, etc. So for example the works of Aristotle and Plato are available in Finnish, and the translations are good as well. The major publishers take care of fiction pretty well. There are also minor commercial publishers who publish up-to-date popular science, and so forth. But obviously all this can only account for a fraction of what is published around the world, and many people read in English a lot. As for Swedish, it is true that Swedish is compulsory in school for Finnish speakers, but I'm afraid many walk away from those studies without a working command of the language.--Rallette (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my impression is that the English-language publishing industry is quite insular, and not very much of the world's best literature is translated into English at all. To read a popular European work, you're more likely to find a French or German translation. Most great Japanese fiction cannot be found in English at all. Paul Davidson (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, I remember listening to a podcast on which several noteworthy translators were complaining that much more is translated from English than into English. LANTZY ^TALK 07:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I think of it, I've often pondered buying certain books and comics that have been translated into German, simply because an English translation is unavailable. I assumed it was just the particular works, but I suppose it could be symptomatic of a wider issue, considering how often it happens. 86.180.48.37 (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to see a table of statistics for this type of phenomenon for Wikipedia. From the English Wikipedia, one can select "Random article" and then see the list of languages of versions available for that article. In German, one would select "Zufälliger Artikel", in Spanish "Página aleatoria", in Esperanto "Hazarda paĝo", in French "Un article au hasard", in Italian "Una voce a caso", in Latin "Pagina fortuita", in Portuguese "Página aleatória", and in Simple English "Show any page". There are very many pages in other languages in Wikipedia which lack English versions. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[I am correcting the Esperanto to "Hazarda paĝo", and the Italian to "Una voce a caso". -- Wavelength (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)][reply]

The keystroke combination [ctrl-alt-x] opens a random article in all those Wikipedias. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will the real * please stand up

Where does this phrase come from and what does it mean? Jacob Lundberg (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It comes from the game show To Tell the Truth, although I suspect it was also popularized by its user later in the Eminem song "The Real Slim Shady". rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]